29–010

Calendar No. 415

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " SENATE ! 2d Session 108–224

AMENDING THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 

1996

FEBRUARY 9, 2004.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 1545]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill 

(S. 1545), to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 

Responsibility Act of 1996 to permit states to determine residency 

requirements for higher education purposes and to authorize the 

cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain alien 

students who are long-term United States residents, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and 

recommends that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS

Page 

I. Purpose and need for S. 1545 ....................................................................... 2

II. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 3

III. Votes in the committee .................................................................................. 3

IV. Section-by-section analysis ............................................................................ 4

V. Cost Estimate ................................................................................................. 7

VI. Regulatory impact statement ........................................................................ 10

VII. Changes in existing law ................................................................................ 11

Additional Views of Senator Sessions .................................................................... 12

Additional Views of Senator Cornyn ...................................................................... 15

Additional Comments of Senator Chambliss ......................................................... 14

Appendix A: Excerpts from Committee Executive Business Meeting Transcript, October 16, 2003 ....................................................................................... 17

Appendix B: Excerpts from Committee Executive Business Meeting Transcript, October 23, 2003 ....................................................................................... 20

2

1 Cato Institute, The Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. 

I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR S. 1545 

The United States should vigilantly protect its borders and enforce its immigration laws. The consequence of illegal entry or overstaying a visa should be deportation. Illegal immigrants who have 

eluded authorities should not be rewarded with blanket amnesty. 

At the same time, America’s immigration policy must also be sufficiently flexible so that our firm stance against illegal immigration 

does not undermine our other national interests. The Development, 

Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act represents a 

common-sense approach to our immigration policy. 

Thousands of children of undocumented immigrants have graduated from our high schools. Most came to America as children, 

playing no part in the decision to enter the United States, and may 

not even know they are here illegally. A great many grow up to become honest and hardworking young adults who are loyal to our 

country and who strive for academic and professional excellence. It 

is a mistake to lump these children together with adults who knowingly crossed our borders illegally. Instead, the better policy is to 

view them as the valuable resource that they are for our nation’s 

future. 

The DREAM Act does not guarantee any illegal immigrant the 

right to remain in the United States, and does not grant automatic 

or blanket amnesty to its potential beneficiaries. However, it does 

give some who have been acculturated in the United States the 

privilege of earning the right to remain. The bill provides a six-year 

conditional residence period for those who entered the United 

States prior to attaining sixteen years of age, have been here continuously for at least five years, stayed away from crime, and either earned at least a high school degree or gained acceptance to 

college. 

During that six-year period, these individuals can earn the right 

to stay permanently by serving in our military, obtaining an associate’s degree or trade school diploma, or completing two years in a 

bachelor’s or graduate program. Because of the residency and age 

requirements described in Section V of this report, there is no incentive to enter the United States illegally in the future, as anyone 

who entered the United States after the age of sixteen or who has 

been in the United States less than five years at the time of enactment will not be able to benefit from this legislation. In other 

words, the act grants absolutely no benefit to anyone who plans to 

illegally enter the United States in the future. Moreover, these rigorous standards result not in citizenship, but only in permanent 

residency status that may one day result in eligibility to apply for 

citizenship. 

Our society benefits greatly from educating our immigrant population. For example, in its ‘‘policy recommendations for the 108th 

Congress,’’ the Cato Institute states that ‘‘[i]mmigration gives 

America an economic edge in the global economy.’’ The same report 

also found that ‘‘the typical immigrant and his or her offspring will 

pay a net $80,000 more in taxes during their lifetimes than they 

collect in government services.’’ 1Further, in testimony before the 

Senate Immigration subcommittee, a senior economics fellow with 

3

2 Immigration and the U.S. Economy, 107th Cong. Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 

Subcomm. on Immigration (2001) (statement of Stephen Moore, Senior Fellow in Economics, 

Cato Institute). 3George Vernez, Richard A. Krop & C. Peter Rydell, Closing the Education Gap: Benefits and 

Costs 30, 78 (RAND Corporation 1999). 

the Cato Institute estimated that immigrant households paid approximately $133 billion in direct taxes to federal, state and local 

governments in 1998. He further estimated that the total net benefit (taxes paid over benefits received) to the Social Security system 

from continuing current levels of immigration is nearly $500 billion 

from 1998–2022 and nearly $2.0 trillion through 2072.2

Moreover, the RAND Corporation published a study showing that 

higher levels of education are associated with public savings in the 

form of lower expenditures for public income transfer and health 

programs, and higher tax contributions. The same study also found 

that larger savings in public social programs would be realized if 

the educational levels of the total population, which includes both 

native born and immigrant segments, were increased.3 As such, the 

DREAM Act will not only directly improve the quality of life of its 

beneficiaries, but will also benefit the overall United States economy. 

America’s national interests must shape our immigration policy. 

We must protect our borders and remove those who do not have 

permission to remain within them. At the same time, with the 

DREAM Act, we can extend a welcoming hand, guided by specific 

and rigorous standards, to those who have already been integrated 

as part of our society and whose continued presence will benefit 

our country. 

Finally, it must be emphasized that the DREAM Act does not require states to give undocumented alien children in-state tuition. 

Quite to the contrary and consistent with the principle of federalism, the DREAM Act returns to the states their prerogative to 

determine how to allocate their own resources. 

II. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

In the 107th Congress, on August 1, 2001, Senator Hatch introduced the DREAM Act, S. 1291. The Leahy amendment of S. 1291 

(in the nature of a substitute) was reported out of the Committee 

on the Judiciary on June 20, 2002. S. 1291 was placed on Senate 

legislative calendar but never received a floor vote. 

III. VOTE BY THE COMMITTEE

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary, with a quorum present 

on October 23, 2003, considered S. 1545. The Committee approved 

an amended version of the bill in the nature of a substitute. The 

substitute was approved by a 16–3 vote. All members of the Committee except Senators Chambliss, Graham, and Sessions voted in 

the affirmative. The Committee also accepted an amendment offered by Senators Grassley and Feinstein (as orally modified by 

members of the Committee) by a margin of 18–1, with Senator Sessions voting in the negative. 

4

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

The Hatch-Durbin Substitute to S. 1545, as amended by the 

Grassley-Feinstein Amendment, now provides as follows: 

Section 1 contains the short title of the DREAM Act. 

Section 2 explains that ‘‘institution of higher education’’ is defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965. 20 U.S.C. § 1001. 

Section 3 repeals IIRIRA § 505, 8 U.S.C. § 1623. Each state is 

free to determine whom it deems a resident for the purpose of determining in-state tuition. The DREAM Act does not compel states 

to offer in-state tuition to undocumented aliens, nor does it prevent 

states from offering in-state tuition to anyone else. 

Section 4 provides that applicants may qualify for an initial conditional period of six years during which they can earn permanent 

resident status if they entered the United States at least five years 

prior to enactment, were under 16 years of age at the time of entry 

and are not inadmissible or deportable for specifically enumerated 

grounds. There is a limited waiver only applicable for grounds of 

inadmissibility under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 

§ 212(a)(6) or deportability under INA § 237(a)(1), (3), and (6). The 

intent behind removing certain grounds of inadmissibility, and providing a waiver for others, is to ensure that applicants are not denied relief under this act based on circumstances that result solely 

from their undocumented status. The applicant must also have 

graduated from high school, obtained a GED, or be admitted to an 

institution of higher learning as defined in 20 U.S.C. § 1001. Per 

the Grassley-Feinstein Amendment, the secondary and higher education institutions must be located within the United States. It is 

the opinion of this Committee that the term ‘‘United States’’ used 

in this Act incorporates definitions provided in INA § 1101(a)(29) 

(American Samoa and Swain Islands) and § 1101(a)(38) (the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and Virgin Islands). 

Persons previously ordered deported are not eligible for adjustment of status under this Act. Exceptions are made for those who 

remain within the United States with the U.S. government’s consent or who received the deportation order while under the age of 

sixteen. Examples of such U.S. government consent would be temporary protected status or a stay of deportation. Moreover, the Act 

presumes that if an alien minor receives a removal order prior to 

the age of sixteen, the minor is not accountable for failure to comply with the order. 

Section 4 also contains a physical presence requirement that the 

applicant must not have been out of the United States for more 

than ninety days in one visit, or one hundred and eighty days in 

the aggregate during the five year period. There is a possible waiver of this requirement if the applicant shows exceptional circumstances no less compelling than serious illness to self, or death 

or serious illness to an immediate family member. The intent of 

this language is to provide examples to convey the degree of compelling circumstances that one who seeks the waiver must demonstrate. Immigration officials should not interpret the language as 

a literal prescription of what an alien must demonstrate in order 

to qualify for the waiver. 

5

4 As a condition for their support at the committee level, Senators Kyl and Cornyn expressed 

that they would like to continue working with the Chairman on other changes to S. 1545. Specifically, Senator Kyl wished to impose an age limit for beneficiaries, and Senator Cornyn circulated but did not offer an amendment that would require graduation regardless of the type 

of institution that a beneficiary attends. The members of the Committee then discussed the need 

for a more specific standard that governs beneficiaries who are enrolled in a bachelor’s program 

(under the present language, must complete ‘‘at least two years, in good standing, in a program 

for a bachelor’s degree or higher degree in the United States.’’). The Chairman pledged his good 

faith to work with Senators Kyl and Cornyn to reach an agreement on an age limit, and to 

‘‘make it very clear that it is two years toward a bachelor’s degree, which means a full course 

of instruction.’’ See Transcript of Committee Business, October 23, 2003, at 67. 

Section 5 provides the ways through which conditional residents, 

after proving themselves worthy after six years, may become permanent residents. The ways are to earn a degree from an institution of higher education or to complete two years in a bachelor’s or 

higher program,4 or to serve honorably in the military for at least 

two years. The option of performing community service was eliminated by the Grassley-Feinstein Amendment. The applicant may 

obtain a waiver for these requirements but only at the discretion 

of the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General and 

only if applicant demonstrates ‘‘exceptional and extreme unusual 

hardship.’’ It is the opinion of this Committee that such hardship 

must be circumstances beyond the alien’s control and which prevented the alien from accomplishing the requirements. A representative example of exceptional and extreme hardship would be a debilitating illness or permanent injury to the applicant or an immediate family member that results in more than inconvenience, but 

that would prevent the alien from attending school. Failure to complete the requirements because of procrastination, poor planning, 

or lack of effort should not be considered sufficient hardship. 

In addition, the applicant must maintain a clean record, meaning 

no crime or other misdeed that would render the applicant deportable or inadmissible. The alien cannot be a public charge during 

the six-year period. The applicant also must maintain continuous 

residence, as defined by this act, in the United States. If the applicant successfully completes the enumerated requirements, the sixyear conditional period also satisfies the residency requirements for 

naturalization, subject to the limitations set forth in section 316 of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Section 6 provides that if at the time of enactment an alien has 

already satisfied all requirements under sections 4 and 5 (meaning 

that the alien has already ‘‘passed the test’’ and has proven herself 

worthy of the DREAM Act benefits) then that alien can adjust to 

permanent resident status without going to school or serving in the 

military again. Pursuant to the Grassley-Amendment, those who 

benefit from this ‘‘grandfather’’ clause must undergo the six-year 

conditional period and comply with all other requirements. 

Section 7 provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security has 

jurisdiction to adjudicate affirmative applications for benefits, but 

the jurisdiction transfers to the EOIR under the DOJ when the applicant is in removal proceedings. The DREAM Act benefits will be 

available defensively to those in proceedings. Children 12 years of 

age or older who satisfy all other requirements of this act but who 

are still enrolled full time in school shall be granted a stay of proceedings by the EOIR. 

To the extent permissible under existing law, a child whose removal proceedings are stayed may obtain work authorization. SecVerDate jul 14 2003 20:16 Feb 10, 2004 Jkt 029010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX SR224
6

5The above-described premises can be illustrated by the following hypothetical situations: 

Situation 1: Federal Government gives Student $100 with the understanding that Student 

will repay the amount. This is a loan and is permissible under Section 12. Situation 2: Federal Government either directly gives Student $100, gives $100 to Institution 

to pass onto Student, or gives Institution $100 but specifically for Student’s benefit. This is prohibited under Section 12. 

tion 7 does not preempt any existing federal or state labor laws, 

including laws governing minimum age to work. 

Section 8 provides for criminal penalties for falsifying the application including fine or imprisonment or both. 

Section 9 contains a confidentiality clause. The Government is 

not permitted to use information gathered in processing an application under the DREAM Act to initiate removal proceedings against 

anyone. Violation of the confidentiality agreement would result in 

a fine up to $10,000. However, information sharing is permissible 

for the purpose of investigating a crime or a national security 

breach. Information also may be disseminated to a coroner for the 

purpose of identifying the deceased. 

Section 10 prohibits the collection of an application fee. 

A new section 11 created by the Grassley-Feinstein Amendment 

requires an institution of higher education to register any student 

it enrolls who is a beneficiary under this Act in the Student and 

Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). 

Section 12, also created by the Grassley-Feinstein Amendment, 

limits the types of federal financial assistance that beneficiaries 

may receive. Members of the Committee discussed at length on October 23, 2003 and orally modified the Grassley-Feinstein Amendment but did not agree on the precise modified language. Section 

12 as contained in the Grassley-Feinstein Amendment limits federal financial assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education 

Act of 1965 to student loans under Parts B and D, and work study 

programs under Part C of Title IV. The modification was based on 

an understanding that while DREAM Act beneficiaries would not 

be eligible for grant assistance under Title IV, they would not be 

limited to receiving only the loans specified under the GrassleyFeinstein Amendment. The Chairman exhorted the Senators to 

vote on the Grassley-Feinstein Amendment with the understanding 

that they will in good faith work out the financial assistance issue. 

The members of the Committee did work out the precise language of section 12. The premises that guided the agreement were: 

(1) a DREAM Act beneficiary shall be eligible to receive all loans 

under Title IV, not just loans under parts B and D; (2) The beneficiary shall not be eligible for disbursement of funds, such as Pell 

Grants or other grants or scholarships, which do not require repayment. This is true whether the funds are disbursed directly from 

the government to the beneficiary, the funds are routed through a 

third party entity, such as a school or a clearinghouse, or the funds 

are deposited with a school in the beneficiary’s behalf; (3) Section 

12 is not intended to bar access to services, such as tutoring, child 

care, mentoring, counseling and all related assistance programs 

that do not consist of the government actually giving the beneficiary a specific sum of money; (4) Section 12 is not intended to 

bar financial assistance by any non-federal entity, whether or not 

such entity receives funding from the federal government; and (5) 

The scope of Section 12 is limited to Title IV only.5

7

Situation 3: Federal Government gives Institution $100 for reasons not specific to Student. Institution then gives B $50 dollars on its own volition. This is permissible because it does not 

involve the federal government disbursing money specifically to the beneficiary. Situation 4: Federal Government spends $100 for programs and services, invites a number 

of participants to attend these programs and services, Student is one of the participants. This 

is permissible because no money is given to the beneficiary. 

The original Grassley-Feinstein Amendment permitted the beneficiaries under this Act to participate in work study programs 

under Title IV, Part C. Although work study was not part of the 

discussion during the executive business meeting on October 23, 

2003, the members agreed that the Committee never intended to 

eliminate work study eligibility from Section 12. 

Section 13 requires the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to 

produce a study, seven years after enactment, concerning the number of aliens who apply for and receive benefits under this Act. 

V. COST ESTIMATE

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that enacting 

S. 1545 would increase direct spending by an insignificant amount 

from 2004 through 2008. The estimate assumes, based upon historical data, that the cost for Medicare and food stamps will be $90 

million from 2009 through 2014 (the CBO estimate does not specifically reference the effects higher education and initial bar to public 

assistance have on future dependency on public assistance). 

The CBO further estimates that the cost of expanding SEVIS to beneficiaries of S. 1545 could be up to $1 million. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

S. 1545—Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act 

Summary: S. 1545 would authorize the Secretary of Homeland 

Security to adjust the status of certain undocumented alien children to conditional legal permanent resident status if they meet 

specific criteria. This change in status would make these aliens eligible to participate in federal student loan programs and receive 

certain other federal benefits. In addition, the bill would require institutions of higher education that enroll aliens who are beneficiaries of this legislation to register those students in the Student 

and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 1545 would increase direct 

spending for the student loan, Food Stamp, and Medicaid programs 

by an insignificant amount in 2004 and by $90 million over the 

2004–2014 period. In addition, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1545 would cost up to $1 million in 2005 to expand SEVIS, assuming the availability of appropriated funds. 

S. 1545 contains an intergovernmental and private-sector mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would increase the number of students that colleges and 

universities must track in SEVIS. CBO estimates that the cost of 

this mandate would be well below the annual thresholds established in UMRA ($60 million for intergovernmental mandates and 

$120 million for private-sector mandates in 2004, adjusted annually for inflation). 

In addition, as legal permanent residents, some individuals 

would be eligible for Medicaid assistance as a result of the bill. 

Benefits under the Medicaid program for these individuals would 

8

cost states approximately $45 million over the 2009–2014 period. 

Because states have sufficient flexibility to offset such costs if they 

choose, they would not be considered mandates under UMRA.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 1545 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget functions 500 (education, training, employment, and social services), 550 (health), 600 (income security), and 750 (administration of justice).

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level .............. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ................................ 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Student Loans: 

Estimated Budget Authority ........ * * * * * * * * * * *

Estimated Outlays ....................... * * * * * * * * * * *

Food Stamps: 

Estimated Budget Authority ........ 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5

Estimated Outlays ....................... 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5

Medicaid: 

Estimated Budget Authority ........ 0 0 0 0 0 5 10 10 10 10 15

Estimated Outlays ....................... 0 0 0 0 0 5 10 10 10 10 15

Total Changes in Direct Spending: 

Estimated Budget Authority ........ * * * * * 10 15 15 15 15 20

Estimated Outlays ....................... * * * * * 10 15 15 15 15 20

Notes.—*= Less than $500,000. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill 

will be enacted by July 1, 2004, and that the necessary amounts 

to implement the bill will be appropriated for 2005. 

S. 1545 would make certain undocumented alien children eligible 

for conditional legal permanent resident status. The Secretary of 

Homeland Security would have the authority to adjust the status 

of undocumented high school graduates and undocumented high 

school students admitted to an institution of higher education if 

they had lived in the United States for at least five years prior to 

the bill’s enactment, were less than 16 years of age at time of entry 

into the United States, and meet several other criteria. After six 

years, individuals could petition to have the conditional basis removed if they have received a degree from an institution of higher 

education, completed at least two years toward a bachelor’s degree 

or higher, or served for at least two years in the United States 

military. 

Aliens who convert to conditional legal permanent resident status would become eligible for federal financial aid. These aliens 

also could become eligible for other federal benefits such as Food 

Stamps and Medicaid after five years—assuming they meet other 

program requirements. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

Implementation of S. 1545 would require institutions of higher 

education that enroll alien beneficiaries of the bill to register them 

in SEVIS, which is administered by the Bureau of Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE). Based on information from ICE, CBO 

estimates that it would cost up to $1 million in 2005 to expand and 

modify SEVIS to collect information on aliens benefitting from S. 

9

1545. CBO expects that any such spending would come from appropriated funds. 

Direct spending 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 1545 would increase direct spending by an insignificant amount in 2004 and $90 million over 

the 2004–2014 period. 

Student Loans. Granting conditional legal permanent resident 

status would allow these students to participate in the federal student loan programs, CBO estimates that about 13,000 undocumented alien children would enroll during the 2004–2005 academic 

year and meet all of the other criteria. CBO assumes this number 

would remain around this level through 2008 and then decline relatively rapidly after that. CBO assumes that these students would 

be less likely to participate in federal student loan programs than 

other students for two main reasons. First, these students are more 

likely to be enrolled in lower-cost community colleges where the 

need for financial assistance is less great. Second, they would be 

less willing to submit financial aid forms for fear of exposing the 

presence of other family members who remain undocumented. Assuming that 1 in 10 enrolled students borrow student loans, CBO 

estimates the bill would have a negligible effect on federal spending.

Food Stamps. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase costs in the Food Stamp program. By allowing certain aliens 

who are in the United States illegally to adjust their status to conditional legal permanent residents, they would then be considered 

qualified aliens for Food Stamp eligibility purposes. However, such 

individuals would be ineligible for Food Stamp benefits during 

their first five years as qualified aliens, so no additional costs 

would occur until 2009. 

Based on data from the Current Population Survey on participation by noncitizens before the changes in eligibility that were enacted in 1996, CBO estimates that an additional 6,000 people 

would receive Food Stamps in 2009, declining to about 4,000 a year 

by 2014. Food Stamp costs would increase by $5 million in 2009 

and a total of $30 million over the 2009–2014 period. 

Medicaid. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase 

federal Medicaid spending by $60 million over the 2009–2014 period. CBO anticipates that the individuals affected by the bill 

would qualify for Medicaid primarily through eligibility categories 

for pregnant women or disabled people with high medical expenses. 

Based on historical data on Medicaid participation, CBO estimates 

that an additional 1,000 people would receive Medicaid in 2009 

under the bill, rising to about 3,000 by 2014. Most of these new recipients would be pregnant women. The estimate of the per capita 

for the new recipients excludes emergency services, which are already covered under current law. 

Department of Homeland Security. The Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) would charge fees totaling 

several hundred dollars per case to provide certifications of legal 

permanent resident status, authorizations of employment, and cancellations of deportation. Thus, the agency could collect several million dollars annually over the next few years from individuals who 

would be affected by the bill. The CIS is authorized to spend such 

10

fees without further appropriation, so the net impact on that agency’s spending would be negligible. CIS fees are classified as offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending). 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1545 contains 

an intergovernmental and private-sector mandate as defined in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act because it would increase the 

number of students that colleges and universities must track in the 

SEVIS system. SEVIS was created to collect timely information on 

foreign students who come to the United States for educational or 

student exchange purposes. Colleges and universities are responsible for collecting and submitting information on student registration, address, and work activities. Currently, colleges and universities are only required to track students who enter the country 

using three specific types of visas (F, J, and M) for academic students, vocation students, and exchange visitors. There are currently 1 million students registered in the system. Section 11 would 

add a new classification of students, those that have attained the 

status of conditional permanent resident under this bill. 

CBO estimates that about 46,000 college students over the 2004–

2014 period would be eligible to have their status changed to conditional permanent resident. This represents an increase of less than 

5 percent in students who must be tracked in SEVIS. CBO estimates that while universities and colleges currently incur significant costs to comply with the requirements of SEVIS, the incremental costs that would result from these additional students 

would be small and well below the annual thresholds established 

in UMRA ($60 million for intergovernmental mandates and $120 

million for private-sector mandates in 2004, adjusted annually for 

inflation). 

In addition, as legal permanent residents, some individuals 

would be eligible for Medicaid assistance as a result of the bill. 

Benefits under the Medicaid program for these individuals would 

cost states approximately $45 million over the 2009–2014 period. 

Because states have sufficient flexibility to offset such costs if they 

choose, they would not be considered mandates under UMRA. 

Furthermore, the repeal of section 505 of the Illegal Immigration 

Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) 

would give states the discretion to provide state-level educational 

benefits to illegal aliens if they so choose. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Student Loans: Deborah 

Kalcevic; Food Stamps: Kathleen FitzGerald; Medicaid: Jeanne De 

Sa; and CIS and ICE: Mark Grabowicz. Impact on State, Local, and 

Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell. Impact on the Private Sector: 

Cecil McPherson. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

VI. REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

The passage of S. 1545 will require the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice to promulgate regulations governing the 

application as well as the review process. 

11

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In the opinion of the Committee, it is necessary in order to expedite the business of the Senate to dispense with the requirements 

of Paragraph 12 of Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate 

(relating to the showing of changes in existing law made by the bill 

as reported by the Committee). 

(12)

1 In explaining the need for the DREAM Act, the majority of the committee relies on a figure 

cited by CATO in its ‘‘policy’’ recommendations for the 108th Congress,’’ which states that ‘‘the 

typical immigrant and his or her offspring will pay a net $80,000 more in taxes during their 

lifetimes than they collect in government services.’’ Cato Institute, The Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress. This figure is based on a hypothetical 

calculation done by the National Research Council that projected the net costs of immigrant descendants 300 years into the future. In the report itself, the National Research Council states, 

‘‘The NPV calculations are based on projections that reach 300 years into the future, and it 

would be absurd to claim that the projections into the 23rd century are very reliable.’’ National 

Research Council, The New Americas: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, National Academy Press, 1997. P.342. 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS 

The legislation reported by the Committee today, S. 1545, is no 

DREAM. Instead, it represents a cyclical nightmare for the rule of 

law in immigration policy reform. It does not address the overall 

problem of illegal immigration, but instead grants legal status to 

a select, carved-out group of illegally present individuals. Regardless of the carved-out category, absolving illegal aliens of their illegal status through piecemeal legislation erodes the rule of law and 

promotes future illegal immigration by sending a clear message to 

future and current illegal aliens: ‘‘The United States has enacted 

immigration laws, but lacks the intent to meaningfully enforce 

them.’’ The majority alleges that the DREAM Act is a ‘‘one-time’’ fix that 

will not be repeated.1 That same claim was made by the sponsors 

of 245 I—an amnesty that Congress has repeatedly extended. If the 

DREAM Act passes, five years from now we will have no principled 

or moral basis to deny these same benefits to those brought here 

after the enactment of this legislation. The cycle will continue. 

I. EFFECTS OF THE DREAM ACT

The DREAM Act will give amnesty, through cancellation of removal, to approximately 500,000 illegal aliens, a number which 

could easily increase because the DREAM Act contains no numerical cap. Once the illegal alien beneficiaries of the DREAM Act cancel their removal, they will be eligible for legal permanent residence, which puts them on a direct path to citizenship. After 5 

years of legal status, all legal permanent residents are eligible to 

apply for citizenship. 

The DREAM Act will allow states to give in-state tuition rates 

to illegal aliens, when those tax-payer subsidized tuition rates are 

not even available to citizens of other states. Illegal aliens that are 

the beneficiaries of the Act will be eligible for all student loans 

under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, just like citizens and legal immigrants. Although children of legal aliens, such 

as H1B visa holders, are not allowed to work, the DREAM Act will 

allow illegal alien children that added privilege. Most offensively, 

the DREAM Act contemplates no enforcement provisions or penalties for the people that knowingly violated our immigration laws 

13

to bring the Act’s beneficiaries illegally into the United States. This 

bill will give those illegal alien parents exactly what they broke our 

laws to get—legal permission for their children to live and work 

permanently in the United States and one day become citizens. 

II. PROVIDING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WITH INCENTIVES IS BAD

IMMIGRATION POLICY

We must not provide legal incentives and rewards for violations 

of our immigration laws. We cannot threaten deportation for illegal 

entry, while we simultaneously tell illegal aliens that if they manage to stay in the United States for just a few years illegally working or going to school, we will pass legislation that gives them permission to stay forever, and gives them a guaranteed route to citizenship. It is a confusing and contradictory message, a message 

that cannot be the basis for the sound immigration policy of a mature nation. 

III. RETROACTIVE BENEFITS AND AMNESTIES ENCOURAGE FUTURE

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

The conclusion by the majority that retroactive benefits are not 

an incentive for future illegal immigration is not correct. If the 

DREAM Act becomes law, we will openly state to the world that 

it is the policy of the United States to continue our cycle of rewarding people who break our immigration laws with eventual legal status and even citizenship. People will rightly conclude that they can 

come here illegally and wait for the next amnesty. 

IV. IT IS TIME FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM, NOT

PIECEMEAL LEGISLATION

One thing we all can agree on is that our immigration system is 

broken. The time has come to take an honest look at the broad 

problem of illegal immigration in America and to enact comprehensive reform that addresses the lack of interior enforcement resources and promotes homeland security. The President has put 

comprehensive immigration reform on the table by announcing his 

plan for a large-scale guest worker program. From what I have 

heard, I cannot agree to all parts of the proposal. Still, discussing 

the problem as a whole is the right approach. We have no choice 

but to focus our efforts on a comprehensive reform package that rewards those who follow proper immigration procedures. We must 

reject piecemeal legislation that only addresses part of the problem 

while we study comprehensive reform. Secondly, no sensible reform 

plan can provide financial benefits to aliens who are here illegally. 

Likewise, comprehensive reform cannot result in rewarding illegal 

activity with permanent residence and citizenship. 

JEFF SESSIONS. 

(14)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OF SENATOR CHAMBLISS 

At the markup on October 16, 2003, the Committee took up the 

DREAM Act, S. 1545. Senator Chambliss filed and spoke on an 

amendment that addressed financial assistance for beneficiaries of 

S. 1545. This amendment was ultimately included, word-for-word, 

as part of the Grassley amendment, which the Committee considered and accepted on October 23, 2003. 

To provide legislative history for Section 12 of S. 1545 as reported with the Grassley amendment, attached is Senator 

Chambliss’ statement as the original author of that Section’s financial assistance language. This statement is taken directly from 

pages 41–46 of the Committee’s October 16 transcript (Appendix 

A). 

In particular, Senator Chambliss, as addressed beginning on 

page 43 of the October 16 transcript, intended the financial assistance amendment to continue to make DREAM Act beneficiaries ineligible for HOPE scholarships as illegal aliens are ineligible under 

the current law. This amendment ensures that DREAM Act beneficiaries will not be considered eligible for HOPE scholarships 

under the definition of eligibility in Title IV of the Higher Education Act. 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS. 

(15)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JOHN CORNYN 

Supporters of the Dream Act cite the goal of education, and specifically the benefits of having an educated workforce, as one of the 

most basic reasons to support this legislation. I believe it is in our 

best interest to have an educated workforce that can contribute to 

this great nation in a productive way. The Dream Act as introduced in 2001 required undocumented students to graduate from a 

qualified four or two year institution in order to obtain legal permanent residency under the Act. If we are serious that the intent 

of the Dream Act is about education, then I think we should require these students to graduate from a qualified institution of 

higher learning in order to receive legal permanent residency 

under the Act. As I said during the committee markup on this bill, 

I think we need to ‘‘make clear that what we are seeking is people 

that actually receive a degree which will provide them the opportunity that I think this bill is determined to provide.’’ See Transcript of Committee Business, October 23, 2003, at 67 (Appendix 

B). 

JOHN CORNYN. 

(17)

APPENDIX A 

EXCERPTS FROM COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING

TRANSCRIPT FROM OCTOBER 16, 2003

* * * immigrant voices urging us to close our borders and jealously guard our citizenship privileges. If these voices had completely won out, America today would be weaker, its democracy less 

cohesive and dynamic, and its place in the world much diminished. 

Much work remains to be done to make our immigration system 

more responsive to the needs of the American economy and the 

need of the immigrants on whom our economy depends. But I think 

this legislation is an important first step. 

And, again, I do sincerely commend you, Mr. Chairman, for taking such a leadership role, along with Senator Durbin, on this bill. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you so much. 

Senator Chambliss is next. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a 

very brief comment about this bill. 

First of all, I would just like to say to the Chairman that I am 

extremely appreciative of this bill being brought forward because 

this, I think, is the first in probably a series of bills that is going 

to bring an issue to the forefront that the American people are well 

aware of and that Congress has been giving a wink and a nod to 

for so many years, and that is, how do we deal with the huge number of illegal aliens that we know are in this country? And what 

sort of status should they be put in? There are too many economic 

sectors of our country that are dependent on illegal aliens, and we 

know it. But we have been giving that wink and nod, and I think 

this helps raise the profile of that issue. 

By the same token, as I listened to my colleagues on both sides 

talk about the effect of this Act and the background of this Act, 

what you are talking about primarily is the legal aliens who have 

come to this country, either in legal status or have become legal 

once they got here. And that is a whole different category of individuals than what we are going to be dealing with here. 

We have in my home State, as an example, a large population 

of illegal aliens. We have a large population of legal aliens. We 

have a large population of folks who are here illegally whose children are U.S. citizens because they were born here. So there are 

different categories of aliens. Here we are dealing with folks who 

truly are illegal. 

Now, the fact of the matter is they didn’t cause that to happen. 

Their parents did. And the issue is whether or not they are to be 

penalized because of—the issue is not whether they are to be penalized because of that, but the issue is whether or not they are 

to be treated the same as children who are born to legal U.S. citiVerDate jul 14 2003 20:16 Feb 10, 2004 Jkt 029010 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX SR224
18

zens, whether they were born in the United States or not, or 

whether you are going to put them in the same category as those 

individuals who are hard-working, tax-paying Americans when it 

comes to the education of the children of those folks who came into 

this country illegally and are here illegally. 

In my home State, we do have that large population, and we also 

have a provision in the Georgia law that allows for children who 

graduated from Georgia high schools with a B average to go free 

tuition to our State-sponsored schools, to our State institutions. It 

is called the HOPE Scholarship. It was enacted, conceived as an 

idea by my senior Senator, then-Governor Zell Miller, and it has 

been a terrific program. The same program has been adopted in 

may other States around the country. 

Under current law, because of the definition of the eligibility 

under Higher Education Act, children of illegal aliens who are illegally here are not eligible for that HOPE scholarship. If this bill 

passes, all of a sudden those children who are here illegally will be 

eligible for the HOPE Scholarship. The HOPE Scholarship is under 

extreme financial pressure right now. It is funded by our State lottery. It is projected that over the next 5 years we are going to have 

to go into general revenues to keep up the standards that we are 

now using to determine whether or not children who graduated 

from Georgia high schools are eligible for those scholarships.

This bill will put more individuals in the pool and really will dictate that children who are here illegally are put in the same category as the children of hard-working, tax-paying Americans when 

it comes to divvying up the pool of available money for the HOPE 

Scholarship in my State and many other States. 

Now, every State in America today, for the most part, is in a financial crisis. You talk about a bill that will increase the pressure 

on each and every one of our governors and our State legislatures. 

This bill will cause more people to have the availability of in-state 

tuition access. It is going to increase the funding, the entitlement 

funding of Pell grants. We are looking at a hugh financial increase 

on our State and our Federal Government as a result of the passage of this. 

Now, the Chairman had a bill last year that truly was narrowly 

drawn and is a bill that I think with some modification I would 

have been inclined to support. This bill is not the same bill that 

the chairman introduced last year, and I am afraid this bill expands the availability of the DREAM Act so broadly that it is going 

to cause a financial burden and it is going to put a reward on people who really are violating the law by being here illegally. It is 

not the intention to penalize the children of those folks, but the 

fact of the matter is they are what they are. And I think we have 

to recognize that, realize that, and, again, I commend the chairman 

for bringing it forward. In my subcommittee, we are going to have 

some hearings on broadening the availability for access to our legal 

immigration status for a number of these folks who are here illegally. Senator Craig, Senator Cornyn, Senator Kyl, and I know others have expressed interest, and our bill is on H2–A, which is our 

agricultural working program. We are working now on an expansion of that H2–A program to broaden it so that people who are 

here illegally that are not just working in agriculture but are in 

19

our carpet mills and our construction industry and other aspects of 

my State, and certainly your States, will have easier access to come 

into legal status. And I think that puts them in an entirely different category than what this bill is going to put them in. 

So in the present form, I am not going to be able to support the 

bill, and I am going to have an amendment that I think will make 

it a little more palatable, and as we move forward through this, I 

look forward to continuing to discuss it with all of our colleagues. 

Senator DURBIN. Would the Senator yield for a question? 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Sure. 

Senator DURBIN. Just a comment. Section 3 of the bill leaves to 

each State the authority to make the decision as to whether any 

of these students will be eligible for in-state tuition or for any State 

scholarship. And if your State of Georgia did not want to extend 

HOPE Scholarships to these students, that is that State’s right to 

do. We just give the States the option to make that decision. Today 

the Federal law mandates how the decision must be made. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Senator Grassley was next, and then Senator 

Sessions, and then I will come to Senator Feinstein. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I thank Senator Durbin for the statement 

that he just made because that is the thought that went through 

my mind as I heard Senator Chambliss make his statement, and 

it is my understanding of the legislation as well. 

As a cosponsor of this bill, I commend Senator Hatch and Senator Durbin for working together on it and producing a pretty good 

compromise. I have heard from many Iowans about this bill, and 

I have heard from both sides of the fence, people very opposed to 

it and people supportive of the legislation. I know that some members have fears that we are rewarding illegal immigration and that 

the more reward that we offer, somehow more people want to come 

to the United States. Coming to the United States is something 

that we ought to be proud of because it speaks well for our * * *

(20)

APPENDIX B 

EXCERPTS FROM COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING

TRANSCRIPT FROM OCTOBER 23, 2003

* * * three other places, but I am perfectly willing to stay if we 

can keep some here. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I do have to leave in ten minutes, just so you 

know. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, let’s give it ten more minutes. If you 

could, Senator Sessions, I would appreciate it. I know you are an 

active member of the Armed Services Committee. 

Senator KYL. Mr. Chairman, if there are other amendments, perhaps we can at least conduct some business before—just a constructive suggestion. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, let me just say this. We will stack 

amendments. Are there any further amendments? 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that I, in 

the interest of trying to be constructive and working together—I 

hope the process will not end once this bill is passed, but that we 

will continue to work together to try to strengthen this bill even 

further. 

I had an amendment that, true to the original purpose of this 

bill, which was to promote education and educational opportunity, 

would provide that the immigrant student must graduate from a 

qualified four- or two-year institution in order to be eligible to become a legal permanent resident under the bill, which I believe 

would actually strengthen this, rather than just merely attending 

but not being sincere about the educational goal that we are all 

seeking to advance. 

I think that would actually help improve the bill even further 

above and beyond what has been done now with the Grassley-Feinstein amendment. But rather than offer it at this time, what I 

would like to do is to continue to work with everyone here to see 

if we might be able to improve the bill even further by making sure 

that the goal that we are all trying to achieve, and that is education, is advanced and not provide an opportunity for those who 

perhaps were trying to use this Act in a way that does not serve 

that purpose. 

Senator KYL. Mr. Chairman, might I ask Senator Cornyn or you 

a question on this? 

Chairman HATCH. Well, let me just say that I appreciate the 

Senator’s willingness to withhold and work with us to see if there 

is some way we can accommodate. 

Senator Kyl. 

21

Senator KYL. I thought there were some kind of minimal requirements, not just to take one class for two years. I mean, there is 

some kind of minimal requirement, is there not? 

Senator CORNYN. If I may respond to that——

Chairman HATCH. They have to take two full years of classes. 

Senator CORNYN. The provisions of the Act, which is 5(d)(1)(D)(i) 

of the Act, says the alien has acquired a degree from an institution 

of higher education or has completed at least two years in good 

standing in a program for a bachelor’s degree or a higher degree, 

or served in the armed forces. 

Chairman HATCH. In other words, they are going to have to take 

a regular course toward a bachelor’s degree. 

Senator CORNYN. I am not sure what that means exactly. 

Senator KYL. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I think Senator Cornyn raises 

a very good point—‘‘completed two years.’’ Unfortunately, at some 

of our universities now, it takes you six years to get through, and 

I am not sure how many credits. ‘‘Completed two years’’ would be—

I mean, we clearly have to get a little bit more precise about that. 

Senator CORNYN. I think I understand where the authors and 

the sponsors are heading, and I just think we may need to firm 

that up and make that clear. 

Chairman HATCH. Let’s see if we can work that out between now 

and the floor. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. May I ask a question of Senator Cornyn? 

Senator CORNYN. And also make clear that what we are seeking 

is people that actually receive a degree which will provide them the 

opportunity that I think this bill is determined to provide. 

Chairman HATCH. Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think the thrust of the amendment is a 

good one. The question I would have about it is does this then subject the youngster to deportation during those two years? 

Senator CORNYN. That certainly would not be my intent, not at 

all. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That would be my question. 

Senator CORNYN. As far as I am concerned, we could make that 

even plain. 

Chairman HATCH. Let’s work in good faith to accommodate language that will make it very clear that it is two years toward a 

bachelor’s degree, which means a full course of instruction. We 

might have to put in a certain amount of credits they have to go 

for. 

Are there any other amendments to this bill at this time that we 

can stack? 

If there are no other amendments to this bill, it is apparent we 

are not going to get a quorum. So what I think we will do is recess 

until after the first vote, and then as far as I can see it will be a 

vote up and down on final passage. I would prefer to do that right 

now if we could * * *

Æ